You may or may not understand what I am about to unload from my brain, so that I can sleep since running at this hour is not an option.
I just returned from an incredibly frustrating English class, to the point where one I feel like I need a drink and two I realized that I really don't want to continue in this environment. There is a young person (I use that term as I know to gender this person would offend them) who sees the world from their own personal space and believes that it is the moral high ground even though they them-self contends there is no such thing as right/wrong or good/evil. Oy, I hope you see where I am going...
We were watching the BBC version of Othello, where the director contended that it was of no significance to have Anthony Hopkins in black-face as race in the play was of no significance. Now, Shakespeare's time - "white" men played all the roles including women and characters of other ethnic/racial backgrounds - so yes black-face as we call it now is "acceptable." And no as an aside I'm not going to rant about whether race is important in Othello because it is dammit. This person argued that race is a social construction and so the issue of black-face isn't an issue, rather we should take issue with the racialization of Othello as it is in the BBC version, as after all one person should not be the focus of a discussion of race and on and on... and then they proceed to insult the class where there might be proposed justification for said "black-face" or calls for an actor of any "Moorish" decent (if you have questions I can unpack this)... Um actually it's an issue in two parts, while "black-face" in a Shakespearean context is understandable presently to do so is beyond inappropriate, as such an actor of a "Moor" decent should play the part I don't care how amazing Anthony Hopkins was. But you know the part about minimizing the importance of race/racial identity (follow by the insult) is what got me. Within a NA context it's hugely import, a whole social movement was based on it, and while you might argue it's a social construct, people don't die for a social construct, they die because as generations of African decent writers have stated it is a personal, integral identity which has repeated been preyed upon, we've forced passing, we've used black-face to mock and stereo-type and while in your precious there are no definers because of your "I view the world that way," unfortunately that isn't how it is. BLERG. Yes eloquent I know but BLERG BLERG BLERG, gosh darn it person someone will deflate your I'm more liberal thus more intellectual/liberated etc than you reasoning, hopefully soon.
On that note, dear Zora Neale Hurston you're next on my reading list. Check her out, she's influential in the maintenance of myth/oral culture in African-American literature and she was a founder of the Harlem Renaissance - one of the first moments in American History where A-A literature found it's own voice and broke out, before MLK.
Lots of things are taboo and social norms are always pushed to the limit every day. If the blackface was done as an insult, then yes, we can accuse BBC and Hopkins for having racist agendas. But if there's a legitimate reason for doing blackface that both black and white audiences can accept, then I don't see why it should be a point of contention.
ReplyDeleteCase in point: Dave Chappelle. Can we say that he was wrong for doing this skit because the content was inappropriate for all audiences concerned?
Both examples may seem tasteless, but entertainment speaks for itself, I suppose.
I could be wrong.
Dave Chappelle Skit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7hxfMHV9A0&feature=related
The issue wasn't if it was an insult, the issue was why when James Earle Jones was initially picked to play the part did the director choose Anthony Hopkins and put him in black face when his statement was that race in Othello wasn't important. If that is the case then either Mr Jones or a "white" unaltered actor would have been more appropriate.
ReplyDeleteOn the issue of race in general, my point is that minorities have been subjugated in literature throughout the years, and while we can rationalize Heart of Darkness, and quite honestly it speaks volumes to a huge range of issues regarding race, colonialism, nature etc, to say have someone write Heart of Darkness now or a similar text would be offensive. White other-ing is wrong, quite simply it is not appropriate in current society. However, that being said, other-ing of ones own culture or speaking to issues in ones own culture can be a productive space. Toni Morrison does this amazingly, but so does Elliot, Hurston, Emecheta, Rhys, Ondataje and Rushdie, especially in the essay works for the later two.
My issue with this person's position was race is important. To as a "white" person say it isn't important is to in essence attempt to "white wash" the cultural/religious/ethnic etc differences, and that is not acceptable. We should all be treated equally but where we all come from, that which shapes each of us is not equal.
Does that make sense?
The N-word is a whole other issue - that's all I will say, other than I don't think it can be justified regardless of context.
ReplyDeleteInteresting only watched a bit but I get the intial point which as I see it is a commentary on being blind to his own skin color - literally - though figuratively that is a whole issue of passing, white-ness and racial self hatred, refusing to embrace who you are because someone has determined that unsavory - Morrison speaks a lot to what is called the "Oreo" Effect - or as I prefer to see it - the Viva Puff effect - Black on the outside, white on the inside (actions etc) and the dead heart on the internal, the lost self overwhelmed by the necessity to not be "other"
To reference: http://www.icecubejunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/junkfood1.JPG
Well, what's Othello without a little controversy? Sure, JEJ can hold his own with the rest of fine actors, but how much more is the issue of race more accentuated when it's done by a white actor in blackface? After all, I think Othello was out to shock the establishment, I suppose the director's choice by casting Hopkins in blackface in a 20th century film would equally be as shocking as a black man marrying a white woman back in the 16th century. You know what I mean?
ReplyDeleteAnd I do agree that race in the context of this conversation is important. It definitely is the root of the play and it definitely influenced the choices of the director (especially if He was going for shock value). I think when he said that race doesn't matter, I think he was just trying to dodge a race bullet.
ReplyDelete